I want to go on record here that I am very troubled that the spec primarily focuses on Third parties. I told this to both David W and Alan. Frankly, the spec should be covering everyone--so-called First parties and 3rd parties. Originally, in the hopes of achieving a good outcome for privacy, NGOs were willing to focus on 3rd parties, as part of a # of issues we were willing to compromise. Of course right now, due to the work of the DAA and other US ad groups to undermine the spec--DNT at the W3C is on "life support," in my opinion. So it remains to be seen what will be the outcome.
But I look forward to proposals that effectively balance out the interests of users and the online marketing industry is an meaningful way.
Jeff
Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220
On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:27 AM, David Wainberg wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I've raised this several times before. You've not addressed it, and you continue to repeat the same thing. Tell me how focusing primarily on third parties is a compromise. With whom did you make this compromise? The third parties -- the primary targets of this standard -- do not see it as such and have serious concerns about the competitive effects of the direction this standard has been going.
>
> -David
>
>
> On 10/11/12 8:22 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote:
>> Dear Mike:
>>
>> As you and colleagues know, the privacy advocates have been willing to engage in compromise in pursuit of a standard that would effectively protect privacy. We were willing to focus primarily on Third parties, consider supporting the no-default approach, etc. Indeed, just several weeks ago in DC I spoke to the DAA's lobbyist. At that time he praised the willingness to compromise by the privacy groups working within the WC3. He made it clear that the industry objected to Microsoft's IE default. I told him that I was willing to discuss this issue (speaking only for my CDD) in the context of a deal offering a stronger outcome (no unique cookies, etc).
>>
>> However, the recent actions by the DAA/IAB show the US online ad trade groups are working to derail the W3C standards process. The recent strong-arm tactics against Microsoft taken by the ANA and DAA (with IAB US support) are designed to intimidate companies trying to be responsible on the privacy issue. The move last week by the DAA to have all marketing and advertising declared acceptable practices ("Marketingâ€¦is as American as apple pie") illustrates the failure of US online ad industry leaders to accept responsibility for its pervasive data collection practices.
>>
>> If the W3C cannot develop a meaningful standard for DNT, the failure to do so is due to the intransigent position of the DAA. It is a lost opportunity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey Chester
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>> Washington, DC 20009
>> www.democraticmedia.org
>> www.digitalads.org
>> 202-986-2220
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> I really do enjoy revisiting the IE10/browser default/non-compliant DNT signal issue every couple of months because it gives me the opportunity to just recycle my old emails on the subject. Please see my previous email below on the matter, which references your previous agreement that we should not honor default "on" browser settings:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> I hate to revisit an issue that has been closed at least twice before, the first time being way back in September, but you again raised the browser default setting issue and its place in the W3C standards process - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/tribnation/chi-reporting-privacy-vs-profits-on-internet-browsers-20120726,0,5932169.story. The story is about the W3C TPE Working Group and how Microsoft has decided to ship IE10 with the DNT flag turned on. I was extremely disappointed to see your quote that industry would face a â€œbloody virtual and real-world fightâ€